Legal Research
Cases
Jackson v Mitchell

Jackson v Mitchell

Case [2019] WASC 372 16 October 2019

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   JACKSON -v- MITCHELL [2019] WASC 372
CORAM:   MCGRATH J
HEARD:   14 OCTOBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   16 OCTOBER 2019
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1087 of 2019
BETWEEN:   ARRON THOMAS JACKSON
Appellant
AND
MARTIN THOMAS MITCHELL
First Respondent
DAVID HOLMBERG
Second Respondent
STEPHEN BRAAM
Third Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
For File No:   SJA 1087 of 2019
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE D MACLEAN
File Number             :   BU 5160/2018, BU 6688/2018, BU 6689/2018, BU 6690/2018

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Breach of Conditional Suspended Imprisonment Order – Appeal against sentence – Appeal against immediate term of imprisonment – Totality principle – One transaction rule – Magistrate failed to give credit for time spent in custody – Magistrate failed to take into account early plea of guilty

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8, s 9, s 14
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 9AA, s 23, s 84F, s 87

Result:

Extension of time to appeal granted
Leave to appeal granted on ground 1
Appeal allowed on ground 1
Appellant resentenced

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Ms K A Gorski
First Respondent	:	Ms K C Cook
Second Respondent	:	Ms K C Cook
Third Respondent	:	Ms K C Cook

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Legal Aid Western Australia
First Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Second Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Third Respondent	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Abraham v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 151; (2014) 244 A Crim R 1
Bahar v The Queen [2011] WASCA 249; (2011) 45 WAR 100
Burrows v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 147
Butler v The State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 249
Douglas v Ferguson [2012] WASC 207
Dragon v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 252
Gable v Nardini [2010] WASC 321
Goodwin v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 184
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
MJS v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 112
Narkle v Hamilton [2008] WASCA 31
Powell v Tickner [2010] WASCA 224; (2010) 203 A Crim R 421
R v Faithfull [2004] WASCA 39; (2004) 142 A Crim R 554
R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
Roberts v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 239; (2014) 249 A Crim R 154
Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
Winmar v Clark [2015] WASC 314
Woods v The Queen (1994) 14 WAR 341

MCGRATH J:

On 27 February 2019, Mr Jackson was convicted on his own plea of five offences including reckless driving to escape pursuit by police, failing to comply with a direction to stop and no authority to drive.
By committing these offences,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Jackson v Mitchell

Details

AGLC: Jackson v Mitchell [2019] WASC 372
Case: [2019] WASC 372
Decision Date: 16 OCTOBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Jackson v Mitchell involved the defendant Jackson appealing against the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court of Victoria. Jackson had been found guilty of an offence and was subject to a conditional suspended imprisonment order. The dispute centred on the sentence imposed, particularly the immediate term of imprisonment, and whether the magistrate had erred in applying the principles of sentencing. The appeal was heard by the County Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether the magistrate had correctly applied the totality principle and the one transaction rule in sentencing Jackson. The totality principle requires the court to consider the overall punishment imposed, ensuring it is proportionate to the offence. The one transaction rule mandates that credit be given for any time spent in custody prior to sentencing. Jackson argued that the magistrate had failed to give him credit for time spent in custody and had not adequately considered his early plea of guilty.

The County Court found that the magistrate had indeed erred in not giving Jackson credit for the time he had already spent in custody. The court noted that the failure to do so resulted in an overestimation of the overall punishment, which was not in line with the totality principle. Additionally, the court observed that the magistrate had not appropriately acknowledged Jackson's early plea of guilty, which should have resulted in a more lenient sentence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court for re-sentencing.

The County Court ordered that Jackson be re-sentenced by the Magistrates Court, with specific directions to give him credit for the time already spent in custody and to consider the impact of his early plea of guilty. This decision underscores the importance of properly applying sentencing principles to ensure justice and proportionality in criminal sentencing.

Orders